Martinez-Amezaga v. N. Rockland Cent. Sch. Dist.

1

GABRIELA MARTINEZ-AMEZAGA, Plaintiff, v. NORTH ROCKLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT a/k/a Haverstraw-Stony Point Central School District, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-CV-00521 (PMH)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 16, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP M. HALPERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabriella Martinez-Amezaga (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action, pro se, on January 20, 2021. (Doc. 1). She then filed, through counsel, a First Amended Complaint on May 3, 2021. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff therein asserted five claims for relief against defendants the North Rockland Central School District (the “District”), the Board of Education of the North Rockland Central School District (the “Board”), Ileana Eckert (“Eckert”) Eric Baird (“Baird”), Kris Felicello (“Felicello”), Farid Johnson (“Johnson”), Avis Shelby (“Shelby”) and Sarah Sorensen (“Sorensen”): three claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; one claim under the New York Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq., for discrimination based on national origin retaliation, and hostile work environment; and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.^[1]

The Court, after hearing oral argument, ruled from the bench on June 9, 2022, granting in part a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 35; Doc. 39, “Tr.”). Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief under Title VII, Fourth Claim for Relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of due process rights, and Fifth Claim for Relief under the NYSHRL as against all defendants to the extent it purported to state a hostile work environment claim, and as against all defendants except Johnson and Shelby as to the remaining theories alleged in that claim. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants Eckert, Baird, Felicello, and Sorensen. The Court further dismissed Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief under Title VII as alleged against the remaining individual defendants Johnson and Shelby.

As a result, the only claims remaining in this action are Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief only to the extent it alleges Title VII discrimination based on national origin against the District and Board; Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief only to the extent it alleges Title VII retaliation against the District and Board; and Plaintiff's Fifth Claim for Relief only to the extent it alleges NYSHRL discrimination and retaliation against Johnson and Shelby. Defendants the District, Board, Johnson, and Shelby (“Defendants”) filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on July 11, 2022 (Doc. 40), and the parties thereafter engaged in discovery on Plaintiff's remaining claims pursuant to a Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 42).

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment in accordance with the briefing schedule set by the Court. (Doc. 61; Doc. 62, “Def. Br.”; Doc. 63, “56.1”; Doc. 64 Doc. 68;^[2]Doc. 69, “Sweeney Decl.”; Doc. 70, “Collins Decl.”). Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion (Doc. 60, “Pl. Br.”), and the motion was fully briefed with the filing of Defendants' reply papers (Doc. 72, “Reply”; Doc. 73).

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The Court recites the facts herein only to the extent necessary to adjudicate the extant motion for summary judgment and draws them from the pleadings, Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement and Plaintiff's responses thereto, and the admissible evidence proffered by the parties. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts cited herein are undisputed.

On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff began her employment with the District as a non-tenured, probationary bilingual school psychologist. (56.1 ¶ 4). Plaintiff's period of probation was for four years, to conclude on August 31, 2019. (Id.). Plaintiff agreed to the four-year probationary appointment and worked at the West Haverstraw and Farley elementary schools during the 20152016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, and at Farley and Stoney Point elementary schools for the 2018-2019 school year. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6). Shelby was Plaintiff's supervisor at Farley and Johnson and Laura Sweeney (“Sweeney”) were her supervisors at Stoney Point. (Id. ¶ 6).

Plaintiff was a member of the teacher's union, subject to the collective bargaining agreement in place between the North Rockland Teachers' Association and the District during the relevant time period (the “CBA”). (Id. ¶ 7; Collins Decl., Ex. W at 25:23-26:18). Pursuant to the CBA, year-end evaluations of teachers are completed by building-level administrators. (56.1 ¶ 9). The CBA also provides that administrators may conduct observations of teachers. (Id.). In December 2018, Johnson attempted to schedule his observation of Plaintiff during a student counseling session. (Id. ¶ 10; Collins Decl., Ex. J). Plaintiff responded and informed Johnson that he was precluded from observing her during a counseling session without first obtaining parental consent. (56.1 ¶ 11).

Johnson instead conducted an observation of Plaintiff on December 20, 2018 during a CSE meeting. (Id. ¶ 27). Following the observation, on December 20, 2018, Plaintiff, Johnson, and Sorensen had a meeting. (Id. ¶ 30). Among other things discussed, Johnson told Plaintiff that she “rushed a little” when she spoke during the CSE meeting and suggested she “speak a little slower.” (Id.). Following Johnson's comment, Sorensen mentioned to Plaintiff that parents had informed her that they had difficulty understanding Plaintiff because of her accent. (Id. ¶ 31).^[3] Neither Johnson nor Sorensen mentioned Plaintiff's national origin during that meeting. (Id. ¶ 32). Johnson's report of the December 20, 2018 observation, dated January 28, 2019, stated that, inter alia, Plaintiff should be “mindful of the speed of her voice,” and that although meetings should proceed “in a timely matter,” it was also important “to ensure that we talk at a speed that comes across clearly and concisely when communicating at such an important meeting.” (Id. ¶¶ 28, 29; Collins Decl., Ex. O). The observation report also included comments concerning Plaintiff's lack of collegiality, with suggestions for Plaintiff to be more collaborative with her colleagues and to reflect on feedback from colleagues/administration rather than becoming defensive. (Collins Decl., Ex. O). The report also noted concern about Plaintiff's fitness for continued employment. (Id.). There is no mention of Plaintiff's national origin in that January 28, 2019 observation report. (Id.).

Plaintiff, on December 20, 2018 following the meeting, emailed Sorensen with a copy to Johnson, noting that she felt it was not acceptable for Sorensen to mention her accent. (Id., Ex. P). Plaintiff did not state that she felt discriminated against on the basis of her national origin. (Id.).

Plaintiff forwarded her email to Felicello on January 4, 2019. (56.1 ¶ 35). Plaintiff, on January 7, 2019, emailed Felicello and informed him of the process by which she believed that her observations and evaluations should proceed, proposing that, rather than having her supervisors the building administrators who are required by the CBA to perform observations and evaluations observe and evaluate her, another school psychologist could do so, and particularly one who had both tenure “and a doctorate.” (Id. ¶ 14). Plaintiff's January 7, 2019 email likewise did not state that she felt discriminated against on the basis of her national origin, but stated she considered Sorensen's “comments about my English . . . prejudicial comments.” (Collins Decl., Ex. K).

On January 14, 2019, Johnson and Sweeney met with Plaintiff in Plaintiff's office wherein Sweeny advised Plaintiff that a student's parent had expressed concern over Plaintiff performing an evaluation of the student for special education services in light of the student's auditory processing disorder, Plaintiff's accent, and the parent's difficulty understanding Plaintiff. (Collins Decl., Ex. X; id., Ex. W at 6:8-13; id., Ex. A at 257:11-259:23; 56.1 ¶ 48). Johnson and Sweeny told Plaintiff to hold off on this student's evaluation until they told her how they would proceed. (56.1 ¶ 49; Sweeney Decl., Ex. B). Plaintiff responded that she understood and would hold off. (56.1 ¶ 50). Plaintiff then called the parent and advised Johnson and Sweeney that she was going to continue with the student's evaluation, and in fact did so. (Id. ¶¶ 51, 56; Sweeney Decl., Ex. B). Johnson thereafter issued Plaintiff a counseling memorandum on January 23, 2019 for insubordination. (56.1 ¶ 59; Sweeney Decl., Ex. B; Doc. 60-11). There was no mention of Plaintiff's national origin in the January 23, 2019 counseling memorandum. (Sweeney Decl., Ex. B; Doc. 60-11).

On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff sent to Baird an internal complaint alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation against Johnson and Sorensen. (56.1 ¶ 81). Baird, following an investigation, issued his findings in a memorandum to Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation were unfounded. (Collins Decl., Ex. II).

Shelby on March 12, 2019, conducted Plaintiff's second observation of the school year, which occurred during two CSE meetings. (56.1 ¶ 39). Shelby conducted Plaintiff's third observation on March 27, 2019. (Id. ¶ 40). Plaintiff resisted observation during a counseling session unless parental consent was first obtained (id. ¶ 38), and so Plaintiff requested consent from the students' parents prior to the March 27, 2019 observation which was ultimately conducted during a group counseling session (id. ¶¶ 40-41). Shelby also...